LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 


CONSCRIPTION  — MILITARISM 


SPEECH 

'■CS 

OF 

HON.  WILLIAM  E.  BORAH 

OF  IDAHO 

IN  THE 

SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


WEDNESDAY,  JUNE  25,  1919 


124302—19544 


WASHINGTON 

1919 


f 

/ 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  WILLIAM  B.  BORAH, 


The  Senate  had  under  consideration  the  bill  (11.  R.  6227)  making 
appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  Army  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1920. 

Mr.  BORAH.  Mr.  President,  I  reserved  a  certain  amendment 
for  a  separate  vote  in  the  Senate,  and  in  making  the  reservation 
it  was  my  desire  to  present  the  question  of  the  increase  in  the 
size  of  the  Army  from  about  300,000  to  about  400,000,  that  being 
tlie  difference  between  the  size  of  the  Army  provided  for  by  the 
House  and  tiie  size  which  will  be  provided  for  by  the  bill  in  case 
it  passes  in  the  Senate  as  it  was  passed  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

I  do  not  want  unnecessarily  to  delay  the  consideration  of  this 
measure,  but  the  proposition  which  I  have  presented  by  my 
reservation  of  the  vote  is  to  my  way  of  looking  at  the  situation 
a  rather  Important  one.  I  think  we  ought  to  reflect  upon  our 
program  not  only  with  reference  to  the  bill  which  is  now  pending, 
but  with  reference  to  all  other  measures  which  have  to  do  with 
the  question  of  armament. 

The  amount  of  the  original  estimate  for  the  Military  Estab¬ 
lishment  for  the  fiscal  year  of  1920  as  presented  by  the  depart¬ 
ment  was  $1,208,322,269.  The  amount  carried  by  th'e  bill  as  it 
passed  the  House  was  $718,654,591.  The  bill  as  reported  to  the 
Senate  carries  $888,703,848.50.  In  so  far  as  the  House  curtailed 
the  amount  of  the  original  estimate  from  $1,268,322,269  to  $718,- 
674,591,  I  am  entirely  satisfied.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  from 
what  I  have  learned  during  the  debate  and  from  the  report  that 
Riere  is  any  occasion  for  increasing  the  Army  in  size  and  increas¬ 
ing  the  appropriation  for  the  Army  from  the  amount  provided 
by  the  House  to  the  amount  which  is  now  proposed  by  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  McKELLAR.  I  think  the  Senator  should  add  to  $888,- 
000,000  the  sum  of  $100,000,000  which  is  reappropriated,  as  shown 
on  page  34  of  the  bill,  as  I  recall  it.  So  the  amount  will  be 
$988,000,000,  as  reported  by  the  Senate  committee. 

Mr.  BORAH.  Mr.  President,  there  was  a  very  general  belief, 
and  pretty  well  justified  by  reason  of  declarations  which  have 
been  made  by  practically  all  the  governments  of  the  world,  that 
the  close  of  this  war  would  witness  a  real  and  substantial  move¬ 
ment  toward  disarmament.  The  people  anxiously  awaited  for 
souie  manifestation  of  good  faith  that  such  a  program  would  be 
initiated  and  carried  to  a  successful  conclusion.  The  people 
were  attracted  to  the  whole  scheme  involved  in  the  treaty  of 
Versailles,  including  what  is  known  as  the  league-  of  nations, 
by  reason  of  what  they  believed  to  be  a  fair  assurance  that 
there  would  be  a  guaranty,  and  such  guaranty  backed  by  actual 
performance,  of  disarmament. 

124392—19544  o 


4 


Mr,  JONES  of  New  Mexico.  Mr.  President - 

Mr.  Bt)RAH.  I  yield  to  the  Senator.  ,  a  4. 

Mr.  JONES  of  New  Mexico.  I  understand  that  the  Senator 
from  Idaho  is  very  much  opposed  to  the  covenant  of  the  league 
of  nations? 

Mr.  BORAH.  lam.  ^  .  n  w,, 

Mr  JONES  of  New  Mexico.  In  that  connection  I  should  like 

to  inquire  if  the  Senator  feels  that  if  the  covenant  of  the  league 
of  nations  Is  not  adopted  the  movement  toward  disarmament 
will  receive  very  much  impetus?  In  other  words,  if  the  league 
of  nations  is  not  entered  into  by  the  United  States,  does  the 
Senator  feel  that  the  United  States  then  would  be  warranted 
in  not  going  ahead  with  its  Army  preparedness? 

Mr  BORAH  Mr.  President,  the  Senator  has  submitted  a 
question  to  which  I  intend  to  address  my  reniarks ;  and  there¬ 
fore,  without"  answering  specifically  the  question  that  is  now 
presented,  I  shall  undertake  to  proceed  with  the  matter  as  I 
had  outlined  it  in  my  mind,  trusting  that  my  positnm  will  be 
made  clear  as  I  proceed ;  and  if  not,  I  shall  be  very  ghid  to  be 
inf prniDtGd  by  th6  SGii8.tor. 

Mr.  JONES  of  New  Mexico.  Of  course,  I  shall  be  quite  con¬ 
tent  to  have  thg-Senator  deal  with  it  in  his  own  way._ 

-  Mr  BORAH.  But,'  as  I  was  saying,  notwithstanding  the  de¬ 
sire  upon  the  part  of  all  people  to  see  a  program  of  disarma¬ 
ment  and  to  see  a  situation  brought  about  which  would justify 
disarmament,  we  have  presented  to  us  a  program  in  the  form 
of  the  treaty  and  of  the  league  which  gives  no_  guaranty  or 
assurance  of  disarmament,  and  we  have  also  an  interpretation 
or  construction  of  the  treaty  and  the  league  by  the  Governments 
most  responsible  for  it,  which  indicates  beyond  question  that 
the  makers  of  the  treaty  themselves  do  not  expect  or  want  dis¬ 
armament.  Upon  the  other  hand,  there  is  to  be  the  most  stu¬ 
pendous  program  of  annaments  which  the  world  has  ever  con¬ 
templated  in  a  time  of  peace. 

If  one  will  examine  the  program  as  outlined  in  England  foi 
its  army  and  for  the  increase  of  its  nayy,  in  France,  in  Japan, 
and  in  the  United  States,  he  will  have  no  trouble  in  coming  to 
the  conclusion  that  those  who  are  most  familiar  with  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  and  the  league  do  not  for  a  moment  regard 
it  as  a  program  of  disarmament.  It  is,  on  the  other  hand,  calling 
for  such  an  armament  as  none  of  these  nations  in  their  separate 
and  individual  action  has  -ever  heretofore  contemplated.  It 
presents  such  a  program  that  none  of  these  nations  have  here¬ 
tofore  thought  it  was  necessary  to  have.  England,  France,  and 
Japan  are  burdening  their  people  as  never  before  in  order,  it  is 
said,  to  db  their  part  under  the  league. 

I  call  attention  to  the  provision  with  reference  to  disarma¬ 
ment  and  to  the  construction  which  has  been  placed  upon  this 
provision,  to  the  action  which  is  already  being  taken  in  the  light 
of  the  provision  and  to  the  different  budget  systems  which  are 
being  framed  in  contemplation  of  carrying  out  the  provision. 

I  do  not  undertake  to  go  into  the  question  whether  or  not 
we  could  disarm  at  this  time,  although  I  have  my  views  upon 
it  but  what  I  desire  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  Senate  and 
the  country  is  that  the  construction  which  has  been  placed  upon 
article  8 'by  the  advocates  of  the  league  befdre  the  public  is 
not  the  construction  which  is  being  placed  upon  it  in  the  legis- 
‘124392 — 19544 


5 


lative  assemblies  or  in  parliaments  where  the  question  of  the 
amounts  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect  are  considered  in  a 
concrete  and  practical  way.  It  is  given  one  construction  in 
popular  parlance  and  before  the  people  at  large.  It  is  given 
an  entirely  different  construction  in  the  appropriation  com¬ 
mittees  and  in  the  parliaments  which  have  to  deal  wdth  the 
subject. 

Article  8  provides : 

The  members  of  the  league  recognize  that  the  maintenance  of  a 
peace  requires  the  reduction  of  national  armaments  to  the  lowest  point 
consistent  with  national  safety  and  the  enforcement  by  common 
action  of  international  obligations. 

The  language  in  which  this  statement  is  couched  is  somewhat  / 

significant  of  itself.  It  says :  “  The  members  of  the  league 
recognize.”  Without  any  particular  commendation  or  any  par¬ 
ticular  urgency  of  the  principle,  it  recognizes  that  the  mainte¬ 
nance  of  peace  requires  the  reduction  of  national  armament, 
a  principle  which  all  thinking,  reflecting,  sane  people  do  recog¬ 
nize.  Without  the  i-eduction  of  national  armament  and  a  pro¬ 
gram  which  insures  and  guarantees  that  reduction,  it  is  idle 
to  talk  about  a  world  at  peace. 

An  armed  world  is  a  fighting  world.  Nations  armed  to  the 
teeth  are  not  the  elements  of  a  peaceful  world,  and  unless  we 
can  find  a  provision  in  the  league  which  gives  us  the  assurance 
that_  a  program  has  been  provided  which  can  be  enforced  and 
carried  out,  it  is  not  fair  to  the  people  of  the  world  to  say,  as 
has  been  repeatedly  said  upon  the  public  rostrum,  that  the 
league  means  disarmament.  Reading  further,  the  language  is : 

The  council,  taking  account  of  the  geographical  situation  and  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  each  State,-  shall  formulate  plans  for  such  reduction  for 
the  consideration  and  action  of  the  several  Governments. 

•  Such  plans  shall  be  subject  to  reconsideration  and  revision  at  least 
every  10  years. 

After  these  plans  shall  have  been  adopted  by  the  several  Govern¬ 
ments.  limits  of  armaments  therein  fixed  shall  not  be  exceeded  without 
the  concurrence  of  the  council. 

“After  these  plans  shall  have  been  adopted  by  the  several  Gov¬ 
ernments.”  Tb.at  leaves  the  question,  Mr.  President,  of  dis¬ 
armament  precisely  where  it  was  before.  What  is  the  difference 
between  then  and  now  and  uow  and  then?  They  recognize  the 
principle  that  disarmament  to  the  lo^mst  point  consistent  witli 
national  safety  is  a  sound  principle,  and  every  Government,  I 
presume  would  have  been  willing  to  say  at  any  time  within  the 
last  fifty  years  that  they  recognized  that  principle,  and  yet  the 
inline  nation  or  the  same  government  proceeded  at  once  to  arm 
and  to  build  vast  fighting  machines. 

After  recognizing  this  principle  in  paragraph  1,  they  turn 
about  and  leave  the  question  of  disarmament  precisely  wliere  it 
was  befoie,  resting  upon  the  individual  discretion  and  judgment 
and  initiative  of  each  separate  and  individual  nation. 

It  is  true  that  after  the  program  has  been  accepted  they  must 
consult  the  council  with  reference  to  increasing  it.  I  do  not  now 
enter  upon  the  question  of  tlie  power  of  the  council  to  enforce 
any  such  understanding ;  I  do  not  care  to  discuss  that ;  but  the 
initiative,  the  original  program,  is  left  solely  and  absolutely  in 
the  discretion  of  each  individual  nation.  The  program  seems 
to  he  now  that  at  no  distant  day  Germany  is  to  be  admitted  to 
the  league  of  nations.  I  take  it  that  there  never  would  be 
witlnn  the  lifetime  of  anyone  who  sits  in  this  Chamber  any 
124392—1954.1 


V 


thought  or  consideration  of  disarmament  to  the  slightest  degree 
if  the  German  Government  is  permitted,  after  it  enters  the 
league,  to  determine  for  themselves  what  their  armament  shall 
be.  I  take  it,  Mr.  President,  that  there  would  not  be  the 
slightest  step  toward  disarmament  if  the  Japanese  Govern¬ 
ment  is  permitted  to  determine  for  itseif  what  its  disarmament 
shall  be.  If  they  Avanted  to  disarm,  when  was  there  a  better 
time  to  begin  than  when  they  were  sitting  together  at  the  close 
of  this  war  and  thn  enemy  reduced  to  helplessness.  So,  Mr.  ’ 
President,  we  have  the  same  program  precisely,  unchanged  in 
the  slightest  from  the  program  of  the  past,  that  each  nation 
keeps  its  eye  upon  the  other  nations  of  the  earth  and  arms  or 
disarms  according  to  its  individual  discretion  and  according 
to  what  it  conceives  to  be  its  interest,  the  same  old  race  of 
armaments. 

I  can  not  find  anything  in  article  8  which  authorizes  in  any 
way  or  in  any  way  assures  or  guarantees  a  program  other  than 
that  which  has  existed  at  all  times  during  the  last  100  years. 
If  there  had  been  in  -good  faith  a  determination  to  disarm,  there 
could  have  been  placed  in  the  league  of  nations  and  in  the 
treaty  certain  standards  or  certain  principles  to  which  the  dif¬ 
ferent  nations  signing  or  agreeing  would  have  agreed  positively 
and  affirmatively  to  accede ;  but  no  such  program  has  been  pro¬ 
vided  for — and  why? 

Notwithstanding  the  secrecy  which  has  prevailed  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  this  matter  at  Versailles,  every  one  knows  precisely  w’hy 
it  was  not  inserted.  It  was  because  the  nations  of  Europe  were 
unwilling  to  have  anything  inserted  which  would  in  the  slight¬ 
est  degree  embarrass  them  in  their  program  as  it  has  obtained 
heretofore.  Therefore,  we  have  only  a  general  statement,  a 
general  recognition  of  an  axiomatic  principle,  that  disarmament 
must  necessarily  precede  peace  without  any  substantial  pro¬ 
vision  or  guaranty  whatever  that  any  disarmament  is  to  take 
place. 

Not  only  does  this  present  draft  provide  no  program  of  dis¬ 
armament  and  no  means  by  which  it  can  be  assured  or  enforced, 
but  the  original  draft  was  redrafted  in  this  particular  in  order 
to’  weaken  to  a  certain  extent  the  power  of  the  league  over  the 
question  of  armament. 

The  last  vestige  of  authority  or  power,  the  last  semblance 
of  agreement  of  disarmament,  according  to  any  lair  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  language,  was  eliminated  from  the  second  draft ;  and 
it  was  eliminated  because  the  imperialistic  powers  and  the  im¬ 
perialistic  sentiments  outside,  I  think  I  am  justfied  in  say¬ 
ing — although  I  do  not  knoAV  the  internal  workings  of  the  con¬ 
ference  outside  of  our  own  representatives — were  for  a  full  and 
unlimited  discretion  with  reference  to  each  individual  govern¬ 
ment,  as  to  what  extent  they  should  arm.  Had  the  program 
of  disarmament  ever  proceeded  to  the  point  where  it  could  be 
enforced  by  the  league,  or  had  the  league  depended  upon  any  sub¬ 
stantial  program  of  disarmament,  the  league  would  not  have 
been  framed,  for  it  is  an  imperialistic  league,  not  a  league  based 
upon  disarmament  or  upon  the  principles  which  were  announced 
before  tbe  President  went  to  Versailles. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  frank  to  say^that  I  am  led  to  make  these 
remarks  to-day  by  reason  of  a  statement  which  was  made  a 
124392—19544 


7 


few  days  ago,  at  Wichita,  Kans.,  I  believe,  by  the  ex-PresIdent, 
wherein,  referring  to  article  8,  he  said : 

Thus  we  are  to  stop  forever  the  race  for  armaments,  the  truculence 
of  bullying  they  endanger,  their  temptation  to  war,  and  their  cruel  and 
enormous  destructiveness  when  war  ensues. 

Speaking  further  to  the  Kansas  farmers,  anxious  to  be  rid 
of  the  great  burdens  of  taxes  which  are  imposed  upon  them  by 
reason  of  this  armament,  he  says : 

Unless  we  have  this  league  of  nations,  this  race  of  armament  must  go 
on  with  the  dreary  round  of  events — first  burdensome  taxation  and 
consumption  and  waste  of  producing  capacity,  then  war,  then  world 
suicide.  These  are  the  only  alternatives  to  a  league. 

This  statement  is  made  in  the  face  of  the  plain  language 
which  leaves  action  with  each  Government  as  before,  in  the  face 
of  the  huge  budgets  for  armaments  in  all  Governments  members 
of  the  league,  in  face  of  the  fact  that  the  ex-President  advocates 
conscription  in  time  of  peace. 

There  is  no  more  seductive  proposition  that  could  be  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  people  of  this  country  in  favor  of  the  league  of 
nations  than  this  proposition  stated  by  the  ex-President,  that 
without  the  league  disarmament  could  not  take  place,  and  with 
the  league  we  are  rid  of  armaments  and  the  great  fighting 
machines  of  the  world.  The  one  thing  for  which  men  have 
prayed  during  these  years,  long  before  this  war  began,  was 
some  system  or  organization  or  means  by  wli'ich  these  great 
burdens  could  be  lifted  for  all  time.  When  they  are  told  by  an 
ex-President  that  the  league  of  nations  Is  a  guarauty  to  them 
of  that  which  they  have  been  hoping  for  it  is  the  most  conclusive 
argument  which  could  be  presented  to  them. 

But  it  is  up  to  the  ex-President.  to  state  to  the  people  of 
this  country  how  disarmament  can  take  place  when  every 
government  decides  for  itself  to-day,  as  it  has  heretofore,  -r 

what  armaments  it  sliall  have.  It  is  up  to  those  who  make 
such  statements  to  point  out  the  language  by  which,  if  Japan 
wants  to  build  eight  warships,  she  can  be  compelled  to  be 
satisfied  with  but  two,  and  if  Japan  builds  eight  how  many 
will  the  United  States  build?  If  the  United  States  builds 
eiglit,  how  many  will  England  build?  So  the  round  goes,  leav¬ 
ing  it  to  the  individual  discretion  and  action  of  each  particular 
nation,  wdthout  any  power  whatever  in  the  league  or  without 
any  agreement  among  the  nations  as  to  a  proper  standard  of 
armament. 

Mr.  President,  Horace  Greeley  once  said  that  “  the  way  to 
resume  specie  payments  was  to  resume,”  and  the  only  way  to 
disarm  is  to  disarm.  The  only  possible  means  by  which  it 
cobdd  be  accomplished  would  be  to  put  into  the  league  itself,  or 
the  treaty,  the  standards  by  which  armament  should  be 
measx:red,  the  clear,  positive  agreement  that  certain  concrete 
steps  looking  to  disarmament  should  bo  taken. 

The  men  who  went  to  Versailles  to  formulate  the  treaty  went 
there  under  the  solemn  pledge  to  do  specific  things  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  disarmament.  Before  the  conference  was  called  certain 
things  had  been  promised  to  the  people  of  the  world — not  that 
we  will  disarm,  in  the  far-off  and  mo.st  illusive  sometime,  not 
that  we  will  reco.gnize  the  principle  that  disarmament  precedes 
peace,  but  they  said,  “  We  will  do  this  concrete  thing,”  and,  doing 
this  concrete  thing,  disarmament  necessarily  and  inevitably 

12-1392 — 19544 


8 


,y 


follows.  For  instance,  before  they  went  to  Versailles  we  were 
informed  that  the  first  essential,  indispensable  step  toward  the 
peace  of  the  world  was  to  establish  the  principle  of  the  freedom 
of  the  seas.  The  establishment  of  that  principle  is  just  as 
prerequisite  to  the  destruction  of  navalism  as  the  destruction 
of  conscription  is  indispensable  to  the  destruction  of  the  curse 

of  militarism.  ^  ^  x, 

These  two  principles — the  establishment  of  the  freedom  of 
the  seas  and  the  elimination  of  conscription  were  the  two  great 
principles  which  were  promised  to  the  people  of  the  world  by  the 
men  who  controlled  and  shaped  affairs  at  Versailles  before  they 
went  there;  and  the  very  fact  that  both  of  these  things,  the 
very  basis  of  navalism  and  militarism,  were  eliminated,  rejected 
out  of  hand,  must  "be  satisfactory  proof  to  any  reflecting  man 
that,  whatever  they  thought  before  they  met,  they  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  disarmament  was  not-ptacticable.  That  is  what 
the  people  should  be  told,  that  they  have  not  provided  for  dis¬ 
armament  because  they  found  that  it  was  impracticable  to  do  so. 
It  is  a  system  of  misrepresentation,  seldom  excelled,  to  tell  the 
people,  after  these  broken  promises,  that  disarmament  is  to 

follow.  ,  , 

The  Versailles  conference  had  not  been  in  session  24  hours — 
indeed,  if  I  remember  correctly,  It  had  not  yet  met — when  the 
English  authorities  announced  that  the  question  of  the  freedom 
of  the  seas  would  not  be  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Versailles  'tonference,  and,  in  order  to  render  it  safe  beyond 
discussion,  M.  Olemenceau  announced  in  the  public  press  that 
upon  that  proposition  he  would  stand  by  Great  Britain.  So 
before  the  conference  had  been  convened,  or  at  least  before  it 
had  proceeded  to  any  considerable  extent,  the  first  concrete 
proposition  of  disarmament  was  rejected,  or  rather  disowned,  by 
the  conference.  Placidly,  almost  facetiously,  they  put  it  aside. 

During  the  campaign  in  England  just  prior  to  the  peace  con¬ 
ference  Lloyd-George  made  a  solemn  pledge,  as  the  representa¬ 
tive  of  England,  that  the  second  step  toward  disarmament,  the 
rejection  of  the  principle  of  conscription,  would  be  written  ihto 
the  treaty.  He  said  : 

On  the  eve  of  this  important  election,  -which  means  so  much  to  the 
country,  I  "wish  to  make  It  clear  beyond  all  doubt  that  I  stand  for  the 
abolition  of  conscript  armies  in  all  lands. 

Give  attention  to  this  language : 

Without  that  the  peace  conference  would  be  a  failure  and  a  sham. 
These  great  military  machines  are  responsible  for  the  agony  the  world 
has  passed  through,  and  it  would  be  a  i  or  ending  to  any  peace  con¬ 
ference  that  allowed  them  to  continue. 

Mr.  REED.  From  what  is  the  Senator  reading? 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  am  reading  from  a  speech  made  by  Lloyd- 
George  to  the  electors  of  England  in  the  last  election. 

Mr.  LA  FOLLETTB.  What  was  the  date? 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  have  not  the  date  here,  but  it  took  place,  as 
the  Senator  will  recall,  after  the  armistice  but  before  the  peace 
conference  had  assembled. 

Mr.  LODGE.  It  was  in  December, 

Mr.  BORAH.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  states  that 
It  was  in  December. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  unable  to  pass  over  this  statement  of 
Lloyd-George  with  a  simple  reading  of  it.  It  not  only  states 
124392^9544 


4^ 


9 


a  principle,  but  states  in  a  single  paragraph  all  I  contend  for 
here,  and  that  is  that  without  these  two  fundamental  steps, 
the  establishment  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  and  the  inhibition 
on  conscription,  any  talk  about  peace  is  a  delusion  and  a  sham. 
■Lloyd-George  set  up  his  own  test  of  disarmament,  his  own  test 
of  a  genuine  treaty  of  peace,  and  that  test  I  invoke.  I  ask 
those  who  are  talking  to  the  people  of  this  country  about  dis¬ 
armament  to  give  some  attention  to  this  merciless  condemna¬ 
tion  of  the  league  which  we  are  asked  to  accept  as  a  guaranty 
of  peace. 

Germany  is  disarmed.;  she  is  reduced,  so  far  as  her  military 
force  is  concerned,  to  a  state  of  helplessness ;  conscription,  if  I 
remember  the  treaty  correctly,  is  inhibited  in  Germany  ;  and  yet, 
while  the  only  enemy  whom  we  have  feared,  the  only  possible 
enemy  who  could  have  called  us  out  of  our  isolation  into  the 
turmoil  of  Europe,  the  only  enemy  who  we  believe  could  in  any 
sense  threaten  the  civilization  of  the  world,  is  disarmed  and 
conscription  prohibited  within  her  borders,  the  nations  which 
pledged  themselves  to  disarmament  refuse  to  apply,  even  in  the 
slightest  degree,  the  principle  which  Mr.  Lloyd-George  said  was 
Essential  to  peace  to  the  other  nations  of  the  world.  While 
Germany  is  disarmed,  other  nations  are  left  to  arm  to  their 
content  or  to  their  discretion,  without  any  agreement  amongst 
themselves  or  any  understanding  amongst  themselves  that  their 
armaments  shall  be  within  certain  confined  limits  or  according  to 
certain  standards. 

Permit  me  to  read  again: 

On  the  eve  of  this  Important  election,  which  means  so  much  to  the 
country,  I  wish  to  make  it  clear  beyond  all  doubt  that  I  stand  for  the 
abolition  of  conscript  armies  In  all  lands.  Without  that  the  peace  con¬ 
ference  would  be  a  failure  and  a  sham. 

Yet,  Mr.  President,  the  ex-President  of  the  United  States  is 
stating  that  without  the  league  of  nations,  which  provides  for 
nothing  covering  the  subject  matter  to  which  Mr.  Lloyd-George 
referred,  and  under  which  the  question  of  armaments  is  still 
left  open,  we  proceed  at  once  to  the  realization  of  the  hopes  of 
the  people  that  disarmament  is  to  be  had. 

There  was  a  good  reason,  in  my  judgment,  for  refusing  to  in¬ 
hibit  conscription.  The  volunteer  system,  in  my  humble  opinion, 
would  always  be  sufficient  to  protect  this  Republic.  I  am  not 
now  proposing  to  enter  upon  an  argument  against  the  con¬ 
scription  system,  so  far  as  it  applied  to  this  warf  I  expressed 
my  views  _^at  the  time  that  question  was  pending,  a?(id  I  have 
in  no  sense  modified  them ;  but  the  volunteer  system  could,  with 
apparent  safety,  be  relied  upon  to  protect  the  Republic  when  the 
Republic  was  in  peril.  The  volunteer  system,  however,  could 
never  be  relied  upon  to  send  soldiers  to  protect  the  territorial 
Integrity  of  all  the  nations  of  Europe  and  Asia.  Without  the 
conscript  system,  without  the  power  to  conscript,  it. would  be 
practically  impossible  to  raise  an  army  sufficient  to  perform 
our  duties  to  the  league  under  article  10,  article  11,  and 
article  16.  Furthermore,  if  conscription  were  abolished  war 
would  be,  to  some  extent,  in  the  control  of  those  who  would 
have  to  fight.  But  with  conscription  men  can  be  forced  to  fight 
regardless  of  their  sense  of  justice  or  their  belief  in  the 
righteousness  of  the  cause.  It  was  well  understood  by  these 
men  that  men  would  volunteer  to  fight  when  their  own  coun- 
124392—19544 


/ 


10 


trios  were  in  peril,  but  if  tliey  were  to  be  reflucecl  to  the  miser¬ 
able  role  of  Hessians  they  wonlcl  have  to  be  conscripted. 

Mr.  Taft  admitted  that  proposition  in  a  speech  in  New  York 
some  time  ago,  when  this  particular  question  was  presented  as 
to  wliere  we  were  going  to  get  the  soldiers  to  police  or  to  pro¬ 
tect  the  territorial  integrity  of  the  different  nations  of  the 
earth,  and  as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  expected  that  American 
boys  would  volunteer  to  perform  any  such  service.  Mr.  Taft 
frankly  admitted  that  we  would  secure  them  by  conscription. 
He  said ; 

Very  liftte  service  of  any  kind  has  been  exacted  from  the  great  body 
of  the  people.  Conscription  is  needed  to  discipline  our  native  young 
men  and  to  teach  them  respect  for  authority.  It  is  needed  to  teach  our 
millions  of  newly  created  citizens  loyalty.  Congress  should  enact  a  con¬ 
scription -law  making  provision  not  only  for  the  present  but  for  the 
future,  after  the  war  shall  end. 

So,  Mr.  President,  instead  of  what  Lloyd-George  promised,  an 
inhibition  against  conscription,  it  is  permitted  to  stand,  and  we 
have  already  the  assurance  that  it  is  to  be  applied  in  time  of 
peace.  England  is  to-day  raising  an  army  of  close  to  a  million 
men,  it  being  only  a  few  figures  under  that  number.  How  is  Eng- 
<land  proceeding  to  secure  that  army?  By  conscription  in  time 
of  peace ;  and  just  so  surely  as  we  enter  this  league  of  nations 
and  the  obligations  of  articles  10  and  11  are  imposed  upon  us 
and  the  conditions  of  those  articles  are  to  be  carried  out  by  find¬ 
ing  American  boys  to  perform  the  services  which  will  be  re¬ 
quired,  just  that  certain  we  will  have  conscription  in  this  coun¬ 
try  in  time  of  peace.  We  have  now  our  great  organizations 
already  conducting  a  campaign  for  universal  military  training; 
we  have  a  condition  being  imposed  upon  us  which  will  require 
conscription,  and  upon  top  of  that  We  have  the  promise  made 
that  we  will  perform  our  part  of  the  service  of  policing  the  dif¬ 
ferent  parts  of  the  world,  w'hich  in  itself  would  require  conscrip¬ 
tion,  if  nothing  else  did. 

Let  it  be  understood,  Mr.  President,  that  this  is  the  situation ; 
let  the  people  know  the  facts ;  and  then,  if  the  American  people 
want  to  assume  the  obligation  and  accept  this  program,  I  shall 
be  silent.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  what  a  majority  of  the 
American  people  determine  to  be  for  the  best  intei’est  of  our 
Government  shall  prevail ;  but  I  seriously  object  to  its  being 
presented  to  those  who  are  asked  to  approve  the  proposition 
that  it  means  one  thing,  when  in  fact  it  means  an  entirely  dif-^ 
ferent  thing. 

Mr.  President,  there  has  never  been  any  intention  to  disarm. 
When  this  Congress  closed  on  the  4th  of  March  with  a  little  un¬ 
finished  business  on  hand  there  was  pending  in  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  a  bill  providing  an  appropriation  of  $750,- 
000,000  to  build  what  was  stated  to  be  the  largest  navy  in  the 
world.  This  bill  was  being  advocated  and  urged  in  the  light  of 
the  league,  and,  as  stated  by  the  advocates  of  both  the  bill  and 
the  league,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  terms  of  the  league.  Seven 
hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars  is  more  money  than  was  ex¬ 
pended  by  Germany,  France,  and  England  combined  upon  their 
navies  in  1913;  $750,000,000  is  the  largest  appropriation  twice 
over  that  any  nation  ever  made  for  naval  purposes  in  time  of 
peace.  Why  was  it  proposed  to  appropriate  that  amount? 
Admiral  Badger  says  in  his  testimony  before  the  House  com¬ 
mittee  : 

124392—19544 


4 


11 


The  Navy  of  the  United  States  Should  ultimately  be  equal  to  the  most 
powerful  maintained  by  any  other  nation  in  the  world.  It  should  be 
gradually  Increased  to  tbis  point  by  such  a  rate  of  development  year 
by  year  as  may  be  permitted  by  the  facilities  of  the  country,  but  the 
limit  above  defined  should  be  obtained  not  later  than  1925.  Navies 
must  be  the  principal  support  of  a  league  of  nations,  and  the  United 
States,  from  its  wealth,  its  Influence,  and  its  power,  will  be  called  upon 
to  contribute  a  very  large  share  of  the  international  police  force  neces¬ 
sary  to  render  such  a  league  effective. 


Then  the  admiral  urges,  as  an  advocate  of  the  league,  the 
large  Navy,  because  It  Is  essential  and  indispensable  for  the 
service  of  the  United  States  in  the  performance  of  its  portion  of 
its  duty  under  the  league.  At  the  same  time,  Mr.  President,  we 
had,  when  Congress  closed,  pending  before  us  a  bill  providing 
for  an  Army  of  500,000  men, .  Gen.  March  stated  in  his  testi¬ 
mony  a  few  days  ago  that  if  the  other  nations  of  the  world  do 
their  part,  500,000  men  may  be  sufficient  to  enable  the  United 
States  to  perform  its  part  under  the  league  of  nations.  If  ftie 
other  nations  of  the  world  do  their  part,  we  can  get  along  with 
an  Army  of  500,000  men ;  but  if  they  should  fail  to  do  their  part, 
heaven  only  knows  the  size  of  the  Army  which  would  be  re¬ 
quired  upon  the  part  of  this  Government  in  order  to  carry  out, 
in  good  faith,  its  portion  of  the  contract. 

'  We  ai-e  to  have  the  largest  Navy  in  the  world,  and  an  Army 
ot  500.000  men,  not  because  we  are  not  entering  into  the  league 
of  nations,  not  because  we  are  reverting  to  the  old  system  and 
the  old  program,  but  in  order  to  carry  out  our  portion  of  our 
duty  under  the  league  of  nations.- 

•  Some  one  may  say  that  without  the  league  of  nations  we 
might  have  to  have  more  Army.  That  is  a  matter  of  specula- 
tiou ;  but  certainly  no  one  is  justified  in  saying  what  has  been 
said  by  the  ex-President,  that  the  league  means  disarmament 
when  those  wdio  are  advocating  it  say  that  the  largest  Navy  in 
the  world  is  necessary  to  perforin  our  duty  under  it,  and  an 
Army  of  500,000  men  is  essential  to  perform  our  portion'of  the 
police  duty. 

Gpn.  Maurice,  when  interviewed  upon  this  subject  some  time 
hgo,  spoke  with  considerable  frankness  in  regard  to  it  and 
said  that —  ’ 


,  Not  only  must  the  United  States  furnish  the  financial  support  for 
reconstruction  of  the  war-stricken  countries— without  which  assistance 
lIi*6  lG&gu0  would  bG  stillborn — but  tliEt  u  gi'G&t  AniGricun  Nq.vv  is  ubso- 
lately  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  the  league. 


Mr.  THOMAS.  Mr.  President,  will  the  Senator  give  the 
Senate  the  date  of  that  announcement? 

Mr.  BORAH.  According  to  my  memorandum  here  that  was 
pn  February  21.  The  Navy,t|Oen.  Maurice  declared,  is  abso¬ 
lutely  essential  to  the  maintenance  of  the  league,  and  is  its 
chief  administrative  weapon  and  the  oniy  means  by  which  the 
principle  of  economic  pressure  can  be-  sufficiently  applied  under 
the  league;  and  the  great  American  Republic  must  furnish  its 
portion  of  the  Army  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  league. 

Mr.  President,  no  one  who  reflects  for  a  moment  upon  article 
10  and  article  11  will  disagree  with  Gen.  Maurice.  If  we  are 
going  to  enforce  economic  pressure  every  time  there  is  a  dis¬ 
turbance,  or  if  we  are  going  to  police  the  world,  he  is  a  gib¬ 
bering  idiot  who  supposes  for  a  moment  that  that  means  any¬ 
thing  other  than  the  most  stupendous  armaments,  because  you 
must  be  prepared  every  instant  to  oversee  and  police  the  whole 
124392—19544 


12 


civilized  world,  and  that  means  arming  to  the  utmost.  Whether 
we  use  our  lighting  machine  or  not,  it  must  be  ready  every 

moment.  ,  „  ,  ,  .1  i. 

Mr.  Bonur  Law  said  in  the  House  of  Commons  last  week  that 

there  are  23  wars  now  raging  in  Europe.  Mr.  Simonds,  the 
famous  war  correspondent  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  gives  a 
list  last  Sunday  of  18.  The  New  York  Times  gives  a  list  two  or 
three  weeks  ago  Sunday  of  16.  Somewhere  between  Id  and  J.6 
wars  are  now  raging  in  Europe,  and  perhaps  every  one  of  them 
involves  the  question  of '  territorial  integrity  or  political  inde¬ 
pendence.  Gen.  March  was  modest  enough  when  he  said  that 
if  the  other  nations  of  the  world  do  their  part  500,000  men  may 
be  enough  to  take  care  of  23  wars.  t  ^ 

Mr.  President,  no  wonder  the  men  at  Versailles  abandoned 
disarmament  and  provided  for  armament.  When  they  sat  down 
and  looked  at  the  practical  side  of  this  question  they  said; 
“This  promise  which  Lloyd  George  made  to  the  electois  is  all 
right  for  the  electors,  but  it  will  not  guard  the  territorial  in¬ 
tegrity  of  the  different  nations  of  the  earth. 

INIr.  REED.  Mr.  President - 

Mr.  BORAH.  Just  a  moment.  “That  can  only  be  accom¬ 
plished  by  conscription.”  And,  Mr.  President,  let  me  say  here 
and  now  that  conscription  is  the  basis  of  Prussian  miiitarism. 
Without  it  it  could  not  exist.  No  modern  military  hero  has 
been  able  to  carry  his  program  to  any  extent  whatever  without 
the  power  to  place  the  grip  of  government  upon  the  men  who 
are  to  fill  the  trenches  and  crowd  the  hospitals  of  pam.  Gon- 
scription  is  the  groundwork  of  militarism,  it  makes  no  differ¬ 
ence  in  what  country  it  obtains. 

Mr.  REED,  Mr.  President - - 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from 
Idaho  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Missouri? 

Mr.  BORAH.  ,  I  do.  .  .  t  .4. 

Mr.  REED.  The  Senator  has  just  passed  the  point.  Is  it 
not  a  fact  that  England’s  repudiation  of  the  proposition  of,  dis¬ 
armament  was  complete  when  England  itself  insisted  that  it 
would  not  reduce  its  fleet  by  a  siiigie  siiip?  Does  it  not  follow, 
from  that  fact  that  England’s  chief  confidence  lay  in  her  wooden 
forts,  as  she  used  to  call  them — her  steel  forts  or  floating 
fortresses  now — and  does  it  not  also  follow  from  that  that  if 
England  is  to  maintain  an  enormous  fleet  upon  the  seas,  other 
nations  must  either  implicitly  trust  her  or  they  must  be.pre-, 
pared  to  defend  themselves?  -  ' 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  think  the  Seimtor’s  statement  is  correct.  . 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Mr.  PresTdent,  will  the  Senator  quote 
when  England  said,  at  any  time  in  her  history,  that  she  would 
not  reduce  her  fleet  by  one  vessel? 

Mr.  REED.  Yes,  sjr. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I  should  like  to  hear  it. 

Mr.  REED.  During  the  early  discussion  of  the  peace  league, 
after  the  delegates  had  assembled,  the  question  came  up  and 
was  discussed  in  the  public  press,  not  only  for  days  but  for 
weeks,  as  to  what  the  attitude  of  England  would  be.  There  was 
a  time  when  it  was  understood  that  it  was  doubtful  whether 
England  would  agree  to  go  into  a  league  of  nations.  Finally, 
the  language  was  devised  and  written  into  the  league  that  in 

124392—19544 


13 


fixing  the  armament,  account  should  be  taken  of  the  peculiar 
situation  of  each  nation.  I  can  not  recall  the  exact  language. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK,  “  Geographical  situation.” 

Mr.  REED.  Yes;  and  peculiar  conditions;  and  it  was  then 
stated  by  a  British  statesman - 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Who  stated  It? 

Mr.  REED.  And  stated  by  the  pre,ss  generally - 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  What  statesman  stated  it? 

Mr.  REED.  Just  let  me  finish  my  statement. 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  can  tell  the  Senator  one  of  the  statesmen 
who  stated  it— Mr.  Churchill.  I  have  it  on  my  desk,  but  can 
not  put  my  finger  on  it. 

Mr.  REED.  Yes;  that  that  language  was  sati.sfactory  to 
Great  Britain,  and  it  was  repeatedly  stated  by  British  states¬ 
men  that  Great  Britain  would  not  reduce  her  fleet  to  any 
extent  whatever.  I  did  not  suppose  there  was  a  man  who 
would  deny  that  proposition. 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  I  deny  it  most  emphatically. 

Mr.  REED.  I  assert  it  most  positively,  and  I  assert  it  upon 
the  strength  of  the  general  public  press ;  and  I  shall  take  very 
great  pleasure  in  putting  in  the  names  and  the  quotations.  I 
do  not  carry  them  here  with  me  at  my  desk.  Moreover,  I  chal¬ 
lenge  the  Senator  to  shcnv  in  a  single  instance  where  Great 
Bi-itaiu  has  proposed  to  reduce  her  fleet,  and  I  challenge  him 
if  it  is  not  a  fact  that  Great  Britain’s  appropriations  for  keep¬ 
ing  up  her  fleet  are  as  great  as  ever  in  the  past,  and  if  the 
statement  just  made  by  the  Senator  from  Idaho  that  Great 
Britain’s  army  that  she  is  now  preparing  for  the  coming  year 
is  to  consist  of  a  million  men  is  not  correct? 

Mr.  BORAH.  Mr.  President,  I  think  there  is  no  doubt  that 
the  Senator  from  Nebraska  will  find  that  Mr.  Chufchill  stated 
that  proposition  in  almost  exactly  that  language. 

Mr.  HITCHCK^K.  I  hope  the  Senator  will  introduce  it  in 
his  remarks.  I  consider  it  a  highly  reckless  statement  to  say 
that  Great  Britain  has  said  that  she  would  not  reduce  her  fleet 
one  vessel,  because  the  public  opinion  of  Great  Britain  is  just 
as  powerful  as  the  public  opinion  of  the  United  States,  and  it 
is  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of  a  limitation  of  armament  both 
on  -sea  and  on  land ;  and  it  is  that  public  opinion  which  is  going 
to  dominate  the  British  Government  from  now  on. 

■  Mr.  BORAH.  Now,  Mr.  President,  speaking  with  all  respect 
for  the  Senator  from  Nebraska,  how  utterly — may  I  say  ab¬ 
surd — 

Mr.  HITCHCOCK.  Yes ;  that  is  a  good  word. 

Mr.  BORAH.  How  utterly  absurd  it  is  for  the  Senator  from 
Nebraska  and  me  to  talk  about  public  opinion  in  England, 
except  as  it  crystalizes  itself  into  statutes  and  programs ;  and 
the  largest  budget  that  England  lias  ever  offered  to  her  people 
at  any  time  in  a  peace  period  with  reference  to  upbuilding 
her  navy  and  her  aripy  is  now  before  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  has  proceeded  so  far  with  practically  no  opposition  what¬ 
ever.  The  thing  which  aroused  the  bitterness  of  England,  so 
far  as  a  large  portion  of  the  press  was  concerned,  was  the  very 
suggestion  by  the  President  that  there  should  be  a  decrease  of 
armament ;  and  I  have  no  doubt  at  all  as  to  what  it  was  that 
compelled  the  Pre^tlent-  to  change  the  program  which  I  have 
124392—19544 


14 


no  doubt  in  the  first  instance  was  sincerely  entertained.  Eng¬ 
land  never  would  have  consented  for  a  moment — if  we  are  to 
judge  by  the  expressions  of  such  men  as  Churchill  and  Bal¬ 
four,  and  the  bill  which  is  now  pending  in  the  House  of  Com¬ 
mons — to  any  one  except  England  herself  having  any  say  as  to 
the  reduction  of  her  armaments. 

I  read  here,  in  this  connection,  a  statement  from  Field 
Marslial  Sir  Douglas  Haig  which  tends  to  support  the  position 
which  we  have  taken.  This  was  made  only  a  few  days  ago  at' 
St.  Andrews  University,  where  he  delivered  an  address. 

Sir  Douglas  Haig,  In  his  address,  said  we  had  all  been  appalled 
by  the  magnitude  of  the  World  War  now  drawing  to  a  close,  and 
would  gladly  believe  that,  even  if  we  had  not  reached  a  stage  of  uni¬ 
versal  peace,  at  least  mankind  would  never  again  become  involved  in 
a  cataclysm  so  general  and  so  terrible.  If,  however,  we  were  to  avoid 
a  repetition  of  such  catastrophes  we  must  be  prepared  actively  to 
prevent  them  and  must  know  what  course  to  pursue.  Though  for  a 
while  they  might  lie  dormant,  the  passions  from  which  war  springs 
were  not  yet  dead  in.  the  hearts  of  men.  The  seeds  of  future  con¬ 
flicts  were  to  be  found  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe,  only  awaiting 
the  right  conditions,  moral,  political,  and  economical,  to  burst  once 
more  into  activity  and  cover  the  fields  with  harvests  of  armed  men. 

*  *  •  We  could  not  afford  to  neglect  military  precautions,  for  to 

do  so  would  be  to  invite  war. 

That  is  the  same  old  principle,  precisely,  upon  which  Eng¬ 
land'  has  always  proceeded. 

If  the  responsibility  for  this  war  rested  in  any  degree  upon  Great 
Britain,  it  was  because  the  state  of  her  military  preparations  made 
it  seem  to  the  foreign  observer  improbable,  if  not  impossible,  that 
she  would  venture  to  take  up  the  challenge  which  her  enemies  cast 
at  her  feet.  All  available  resources  must  be  prepared  and  organized 
in  time  of  peace  with  the  view  to  their  being  used  If  and  when  occa¬ 
sion  required. 

That  states  not  only  the  position  of  England,  but  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  Japan,  the  position  of  France,  and  the  position  ,of  the 
United  States,  as  expressed  in  the  bills  now  pending '  before 
Congress;  and  instead  of  trying  to  gather  up  what  public  opin¬ 
ion  is  by  reading  newspaper  views  or  the  views  of  others,  we 
can  best  gather  it  and  best  rely  upon  it  as  expressed  in' the 
budgets  of  the  different  nations  which  are  now  construing  their 
obligations  to  their  people  with  reference  to  military  prepared^- 
ness  in  the  light  of  the  league  itself. 

Mr.  President,  how  could  we  disarm  under  this  league? 
What  a  pitable  situation,  Avith  article  10  and  article  11  staying 
us  in  the  face  day  by  day  !  How  are  we  qven  to  proceed  in  the 
first  instance  to  disarm?  Let  us  read  article  10,  and  see  if  It  is 
a  disarming  provision.  See  if  it  is  a  provision  of  peace,  or.  la 
provision,  as  the  able  Senator  from  California  [Mr.  JohnsonJ 
said,  for  organizing  a  war  trust : 

The  members  of  the  league  undertake  to  respect  and  preserve  as 
against  the  external  aggression  the  territorial  integrity  and  existing 
political  independence  of  all  members  of  the  league.  In  case  of  any 
such  aggression,  or  in  case  of  any  threat  or  danger  of  such  aggression, 
the  council  shall  advise  upon  the  means  by  which  this  obligation  shall 
be  fulfilled. 

We  not  only  agree  to  be  prepared  to  preserve  against  external 
aggression  the  territorial  integi-ity  of  all  members  of  the  league, 
which  its  enthusiastic  advocates  contemplate  will  be  all  nations 
shortly,  but  we  agree  to  take  the  advice  of  the  five  or  nine  men 
sitting  at  Geneva  as  to  how  we  shall  perform  our  obligations 
under  article  10. 

124392—19544 


15 


There  has  been  a  great  deal  said  here  about  the  constitution¬ 
ality  of  article  10,  and  the  advice  under  article  10,  and  as  to 
what  limitations  that  places  upon  the  power  of  Congress  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  declaring  war,  etc.  That  is  an  interesting  discussion, 
and  I  am  generally  as  much  interested  in  constitutional  discus¬ 
sions  as  anyone ;  but  this  does  not  concern  me  at  this  time. 
Here  is  a  solemn  obligation,  original,  primary,  that  we  will  pre¬ 
serve  the  territorial  integrity  of  these  nations.  It  does  not  make 
any  difference  whether  anyone  advises  or  not ;  our  duty  is  there, 
and  it  is  a  solemn  obligation  that  we  will  perform  it.  We  can 
only  escape  from  it  along  the  path  of  dishonor.  It  is  an  indi¬ 
vidual  obligation.  Those  who  argue  that  we  may  get  out  of  this 
thing  must  adopt  one  of  two  courses :  They  must  either  show 
that  to  enforce  it  would  be  unconstitutional,  or  they  must  escape 
by  disregarding  and  dishonoring  our  solemn  contractf  If  we 
go  forward,  we  violate  the  Constitution.  If  \ve  go  back,  we 
violate  national  honor.  If  we  go  forward,  we  wreck  the  Consti¬ 
tution.  If  we  go  backward,  we  wrdck  the  covenant  of  the  league. 

If  we  enter  into  this  contract,  there  is  no  escape  on  earth  from 
it  except  through  making  it  a  “  scrap  of  paper.”  It  does  not 
make  any  difference  whether  it  is  unconstitutional  or  not. 

The  moment  that  council  advised  that  we  should  send  100,000 
men  to  Manchuria  or  to  guard  the  territorial  integrity  of  Japan, 
Including  Shantung,  every  newspaper  in  the  country,  and  all 
the  power  of  public  opinion  would  be  centered  upon  Congress, 
as  they  are  to-day,  to  whip  them  into  line,  because  some  foreign 
council  had  decided  that  civilization  was  imperiled ;  and  the 
Congress  would  likely  do  what  it  is  said  it  is  about  to  do — 
surrender  its  own  judgment  and  obey  the  dictates  of  the  press. 

Mr.  LODGE.  Mr.  President,  may  I  ask  the  ^nator  one  ques¬ 
tion? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from  Idaho 
yield  to  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts? 

Mr.  BORAH.  I  do. 

''  Mr.  LODGE.  Is  any  action  by  the  council  necessary?  Is  not 
thlat  an  individual  guaranty  from  the  United  States?  And  if 
^  one  member  of  the  league  appeals  for  the  fulfillment  of  that 
^guaranty  for  her  own  protection  are  we  not  moraily  bound  to 
respond  to  her  call?  ** 

■  ‘‘Mr.  BORAH.  Certainly,  Mr.  President.  We  could  not  stand 
before  the  tribunal  of  the  civilized  world  and  make  any  plea 
^giiiilst  the  fulfillment  of  the  contract.  We  would  be  branded 
the  world  over  as  having  entered  into  a  solemn  contract  with 
our  eyes  open,  willing  to  accept  its  benefits  and  unwilling  to 
assume  its  obligations.  I  trust  that  the  Republic  will  never  be 
placed  in  a  predicament  where  it  will  have  to  assume  that 
position. 

124392—19544 


o 


